Talk:California housing shortage/Archive 1

Archive 1

Created article

I'm confused as to why this article has been flagged for deletion. I added this article as a start, and intend to "flesh out" the article, and had thought that others might also contribute, as this is a complicated issue of concern to many people in the state of CA.

The article San Francisco housing shortage has been existent since 2015, and I created this article to explain many issues pertinent to the state overall, not just the city of S.F.

Could you please explain specifically what content the "Content Fork" you have issue with?

Also, what improvements to the article would address the concern?

Thanks. Avatar317 (talk) 04:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)Avatar317

Ideas for charts.

The current graph on the page can be replaced with a PNG straight from the report, but I think we can do better. Line graphs of data over time can be made with {{Line chart}} or {{Graph:Chart}}; there's data about housing prices in California and in the United States as a whole (both inflation-adjusted and not) from the Census going from 1940 to 2000; I think that's where the LAO got at least part of their data from; more recent data is also available from the Census, and with better granularity.

Also possibly useful: both the raw dwellings-per-person ratio for California and for the United States, and maybe a line graph of the decade-over-decade change for population and for housing units, so you can see the dropoff after 1970 or so. I'll try to get to at least some of that, but in the meantime, thoughts are welcome. grendel|khan 03:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Re: Current graph: Sounds great about replacing the current graph with one better. I do think it is ESSENTIAL to go beyond the year 2000, (ideally to 2017, if possible) because the increase in prices is continuing today (and in some places accelerating - S.F. just recorded $1.6M median home). The economic boom following the great recession has driven these prices up tremendously since 2008 (almost tripling prices in some areas).

I STRONGLY prefer inflation-adjusted, because I believe that this is more meaningful to people. (Now whether to use CPI or GDP inflator, I don't know without further thought/investigation, although if the data comes from the census bureau inflation adjusted, we could just use that.) Feel free to create a new graph and replace the current one with it, and we can discuss how to tweak/improve it from there. Thank you for contributing!!! ---- Avatar317 (talk) 05:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Avatar317

Re: your ideas for more graphs in your second paragraph: Those all sound good, and may help convey the different aspects of this shortage.

"dwellings-per-person ratio for California and for the United States" - I already have that info in the table format, but not in yearly graph format, and jobs:housing units ratios similarly, for specific points in time.....graphs couldn't hurt to show changes over time.

One graph I think would be very valuable, would be to plot both New Residents and New Housing Units for each year from 1940 onward. (Maybe in one graph, maybe separate graphs next to each other?) Apparently the state was building ~ 400,000 new units / year around 1955, but then more like 120,000 per year average for some time, but had a big decline after the 2008 recession. (down to ~40,000)

This LA Times article has two good graphs for recent building and new residents (2010-2016). (They list the data as coming from the "California Department of Finance.") http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-housing-population-growth-20170501-htmlstory.html

I haven't had the time to dig up data for such a graph(s), but if you can/are willing to do that, I think it would really help to convey the change in housing PRODUCTION, and contrast that with the number of new residents. Thanks again!!! ---- Avatar317 (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Avatar317

I agree; that would definitely be helpful--the tough part will be getting the data. I really appreciate the concept of putting the raw data in the page source, with footnotes denoting where it comes from--it's a relatively new feature here, and it is wonderful. I'll work on the number of dwellings and number of jobs and people, plus their ratios, to start with. I wanted to try to get historical data; the Census has this, which is disaggregated, but I guess I can just add up all the types of dwellings. (Current data is here, as well.) On the difference between GDP and CPI inflators, the BLS has this explainer; I figure that for anything people buy, the CPI inflator is the right one to use. And lastly, on the influence of rising construction costs, this graph seems pretty damning that it's not construction costs responsible for most of the price increases, but I'm not sure where to find the original data in non-meme form. grendel|khan 22:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

A few more notes, now that I've added two more charts: it would be helpful to add another time series, maybe for the San Francisco metro area, to show how localized the shortage is. Under 'effects', also, there's a significant environmental impact, both to extreme commuting (more vehicle-miles travelled) and in terms of the exodus to the car and air-conditioning dependent sunbelt. Hopefully we'll get some notes from peer-review as well. grendel|khan 23:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

An unencyclopedic thought.

I had this thought, and it doesn't fit in the article, but I wanted to put it somewhere: The fundamental truth of environmentalism is that you cannot throw things away, because there's no such place as away. It's ironic, then, that environmental-review laws are being used under a banner of conservation to prevent development in places like Berkeley or Marin County, saying that the places are full, that there's nowhere for the new people. So they'll just have to go away. But in practice, away means the Inland Empire, where they'll commute much further by car, or the Sun Belt, where they'll use far more air conditioning and far dirtier electricity. grendel|khan 22:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Relevant "joke" I heard (from someone in another part of the US than CA, but probably relevant everywhere):

What do you call someone who would like to live in the hills or countryside? A developer.

What do you call THAT SAME PERSON once they own a home, and don't want other people be able to build on those pretty hills where they live? An environmentalist.

---- Avatar317 (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)Avatar317

Sweeping statements not supported by the literature

I took out some sweeping statements that were not supported by the cited sources, let alone by the mass of literature on the topic.

One of the worst examples was blaming the housing shortage on "stricter land-use regulations (primarily zoning at the local level)... The fundamental causative factor is land use regulations, which come in the form of both local zoning, and state environmental laws."

This is a naked political statement intended to influence the next election in California. Binksternet (talk) 06:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the view you've placed here. At the same time, I'm keen to hear out Avatar, who comes out as a sensible editor (despite his disruptive ANEW reporting episodes). They have been re-told to gain consensus for their additions here, one change at a time. Let's see how it goes. Lourdes 15:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, let's take these FIVE separate removals of statements/paragraphs (four of which were stably in the article for months, one which was recently added by another editor) one at a time. (Sorry, I clearly failed to properly communicate in the WP:ANEW that I was not complaining about not being able to ADD to the article, I was complaining about a large set of deletions. Please see the comment I added afterwards.[1])

First: I agree that the statement/paragraph: "The fundamental causative factor is land use regulations, which come in the form of both local zoning, and state environmental laws. Local zoning decisions form the largest limitation on new housing development, and are influenced by both residents' feelings about new housing as well as tax structures." Does not have any specific supporting references. If you want, you can remove it. I put it in because this is not a simple black and white issue. When I began learing about this (first by reading the CALAO report cited in the article) I learned that you cannot quantify this problem like a scientific equation whereby the output can be quantifiedly tied to specific different inputs variables. The amount that each separate causative factor adds varies from location to location; different in inland areas than coastal areas, and I was trying to give an overall summary of what all the different references state. I do understand Wikipedia's principle that it is not important to be true, but that it is verifiable, which this one doesn't have specific references to do that, so it can be deleted for now.

Second: The newly added paragraph on gentrification you removed: I don't know that much about gentrification, and would like to learn more before that is deleted. I didn't add it, but it may have valuable content, and maybe could be reworded. I'd like to read the reference they added, which I haven't yet had time to. --Avatar317 (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Avatar317

Avatar, please do not add the paragraphs disruptively. You are disrupting editing by repeatedly undoing my and Binksternet clear challenges to the material. What I suggest is that you place here one of the changes you wish to add to the article (in other words, write the exact material you wish to add) and give the reference you are basing the same on. That would allow any neutral editor to assess your contribution appropriately. I repeat, please don't undo again. Discuss here first and gain consensus. Warmly, Lourdes 00:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Lourdes, could you please read my statements in this talk page and also on the edit-warring report I added previously? These are NOT additions, they have been in the article for months. Only one of the four was an addition that was not mine. (Bolding important section for you to read above.) Thank you. --Avatar317 (talk) 00:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Avatar317

Yes, I did read those and understood their import. The material (whether long standing, whether added by other editors) has been challenged. As of right now, there are a couple of editors on this talk page who have disagreed with the interpretations provided. Consensus no longer exists for that material to remain on that page. You need to now start seeking consensus here for adding the change. Thanks, Lourdes 01:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Lourdes is right; the lengthening time that text has been in an article does not help it overcome problems of not being a neutral representation of the literature. Binksternet (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, the assertion by Avatar317 that I "should justify removing these longstanding statements in the article one by one" is not supported by the WP:BRD practice. In BRD, all challenges to the text must be answered by the party who wants to restore it to the article. So what must happen here is that Avater317 "should justify" each challenged statement "one by one". Binksternet (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

NYT article and my paraphase

Ok, so to start, how about let's see whether we can agree on this first point.

1)My NYT sentence: As the New York Times explains, California's housing issues are exemplar of those faced in many other rapidly growing urban areas across America. The quote I included from the reference to back up the statement says: "Whatever the specifics, what is happening in Berkeley may be coming soon to a neighborhood near you. Around the country, many fast-growing metropolitan areas are facing a brutal shortage of affordable places to live,..." [2]

Apparently I should have included a longer quote, as I would guess that anyone complaining about my paraphase probably DID NOT READ the article. Here's a longer quote:

Whatever the specifics, what is happening in Berkeley may be coming soon to a neighborhood near you. Around the country, many fast-growing metropolitan areas are facing a brutal shortage of affordable places to live, leading to gentrification, homelessness, even disease. As cities struggle to keep up with demand, they have remade their skylines with condominium and apartment towers — but single-family neighborhoods, where low-density living is treated as sacrosanct, have rarely been part of the equation.

If cities are going to tackle their affordable housing problems, economists say, that is going to have to change. But how do you build up when neighbors want down?

“It’s an enormous problem, and it impacts the very course of America’s future,” said Edward Glaeser, an economist at Harvard who studies cities.

... The affordable-housing crunch is a nationwide problem, but California is the superlative.

So, is my paraphrase not fair for what the source says? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avatar317 (talk • contribs)

First off, the guideline WP:LEAD says that the lead section should summarize important topic information rather than introduce new ideas. New ideas are supposed to go in the article body. You put the NYT bit in the lead paragraph as if it was a major article point, but it's a new idea.

Second, nowhere else in your preferred version was there discussion of how California's housing problems "are exemplar" of other states in the nation. The writer says California's urban housing problems "may be coming", not coming for certain, nor currently exemplary in any fashion at all. Also, the text emphasized how California was different from other states. Even in your quoted material, Edward Glaeser says that California is different ("superlative").

Third, the sentence you added is a misinterpretation of the source, an extrapolation made by you and not the NYT writer. The original work says only that fast-growing urban areas in the US can be compared to the same fast-growing urban areas of California. But lots of California is rural, and nothing is said about that. The focus of the NYT piece is not California-wide nor is it nationwide. Your summary wrongly assumes a California-wide and nationwide stance.

The NYT piece is virtually alone in asserting that the housing problems of fast-growing California cities are going to be visited upon other fast-growing cities in the US. Instead, other writers talk about how California is different. So this one assertion found in the NYT piece isn't representative; it is not a common refrain printed widely by others.

So the NYT piece contradicts your summary, and your summary doesn't address the wider literature, and your placement doesn't follow WP:LEAD. I don't see any good reason for keeping it. Binksternet (talk) 05:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• If I may add to the above, while I broadly agree with Binksternet's assessment (I would even go as far as to say that the NYT journalist's opinion about how the issue may spread to the rest of US should be considered primary, as it is not an interpretation based on facts but the reporter's personal assessment of the situation), I don't see the logic of opinionating on the rest of America when the article is on California. If we're trying to get this to Featured Article status and there's some incredible back and front story that is being built to get the article accepted at the FA desk, then I can take a re-look at bringing in the America story. But right now, this isn't even a GA. We need to stick to the context, which is California housing shortage. Thanks, Lourdes 06:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Lourdes: Thank you for your opinions here. I now agree that this sentence is better left out of the article for now. (I think the reference is good, and can be included to add support for other statements, like: "California cities have some of the nation’s strictest building regulations,") The whole of the NYT article backs up many of the points throughout the CA_housing_shortage article, and it is written by someone who writes about many land/housing issues.

I added it because I felt that it connected CA's issues to those facing the nation as a whole, and helped to show the importance (notability) of this overall housing issue, (that is is NOT just a CA thing, most of the same factors are at play nationwide). It is interesting that the PREDICTIONS of the author (as you point out; the article is from Dec 2017) are now coming true across the nation and being reported on in major news sources (this one comes to mind: [3] Home construction per household is now at its lowest levels in nearly six decades, according to researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. This isn't just a problem in San Francisco or New York, where home prices and rents have gone sky-high. It is also a problem in midsize, fast-growing cities farther inland, like Des Moines, Iowa; Durham, N.C.; and Boise, Idaho. In Boise, an analysis by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development showed there is a demand for more than 10 times the number of homes being built right now.)

Again, I agree that it would be better left out. Thank you for your helpful input here! (on to the other points as I have time) ---Avatar317 (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Avatar317

What WAS the last paragraph in the lead

My written lead, with Binksternet's removals in bold: This shortage is taking its toll on Californians in many ways: two-thirds can no longer afford a median priced home, more than 20% of residents are in poverty (6% more than would be with lower housing costs), homelessness per capita is now the third highest in the nation, and California's economy is suppressed by $150 - $400 billion per year (5-14%) because money that residents must spend on housing cannot be spent elsewhere.[4]

(Then some other editor came in and removed what was left of that paragraph, for no understandable reason: "(this is an "experimental" measure so it really shouldn't be featured in the lede)")

For this removal that Binksternet did: I find it "interesting" that he chose to remove the phrase which merely summarizes the Economics section from the "Effects" section. He didn't contest any statements in the "Effects" section, and left the other phrases which each summarized a separate part.

Why remove only that content? From my other conversations with Binksternet on, for example Talk:rent regulation, I would characterize him as an "economics science denialist", in that because he both doesn't understand economics, and doesn't like some of the results of their studies or their expert opinions, he sees it as fit to keep their work out of Wikipedia. See this statement from Binksernet: "Of course we emphasize the science at the article about global warming. But there's no good reason to emphasize economists at the rent regulation article, since the topic is squishy and human." For the record, "The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences awards the Nobel Prize in Physics, the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, and the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences..." Nobel Prize

Here's another case of the same; which I would appreciate if you (Lourdes) could weigh in on: After newspapers published articles about a recently released economic study, I read up on it (and the study) and added a section to the Gentrification of San Francisco article. He removed a line, directly from the research study, quoted or paraphrased in all three newspaper article references, because he claims that publishing the opinions of experts in the field is "political activism". I'd like to note, that all three seconday sources decided that it was important enough to include that line, as a suggestion of a better way (than rent control) to solve the problem of providing housing for those who have difficulty affording it. Here is the link to his removal of that content.[5]

I wrote the lead paragraph here to summarize the effects in the "Effects" section. Seeing it again now, I realize that another editor added content about the environmental effects, which migrated to the Effects section. In my opinion, there should also be a phrase summarizing that content as well, as well as the affordability section, which I haven't looked closely at yet (also contributed by someone else.) ---Avatar317 (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Avatar317

• Hi Avatar, you're going back again to the same old question of why your/other editor's additions were removed/retained. I would re-suggest, forget the past story. Post below what is the paragraph you want to add/update, and give the references below. Stick to that please. Neither of us have time to comment on anything else. I'm sure you understand. Warmly, Lourdes 02:00, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, simple: I'd like it to be mostly as it was:

This shortage is effecting Californians in many ways: two-thirds can no longer afford a median priced home, more than 20% of residents are in poverty (6% more than would be with lower housing costs), homelessness per capita is now the third highest in the nation, and California's economy is suppressed by $150 - $400 billion per year (5-14%) because money that residents must spend on housing cannot be spent elsewhere. reference says: See the section on Effects for a more thorough explanation of these issues with sources cited.

I'd also like to see a phrase about environmental effects and affordability, but those can be added later once someone comes up with good wording for them. I included the "because money that residents must spend on housing cannot be spent elsewhere" because it is my opinion that many people will not understand the vague term "economy is supressed". I'd also be ok with leaving that "because money...." out since it is explained in the "effects" section. Thanks --Avatar317 (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Avatar317

Not one mention of how businesses that provide this job growth don't spread out?

This article reads in a very biased way, given that it does not mention that companies, for whatever reason, decide to stay in CA. This in turn drives up prices. They have their reasons, and it's in their interest. "Blaming" the local voters of CA while failing to mention the mobility of 21st century businesses seems to be a massive disservice to Wikipedia readers.WorldWarNegative1 (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Immigration: regarding my recent edit

[Question copied from my talk page to here, because I believe this is a better place to discuss this subject]

[Regarding this deleted edit and references] I'd like to ask you, then, what do those articles convey and can we include it in the article? Demand clearly isn't just from national demand. There is not one mention of immigration in the article. Qwertyuiop1234567898 (talk) 08:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Qwertyuiop1234567898:, to my knowledge, there aren't any references in this article which were WRITTEN before 2015. Yes, historical info is important, but I don't think either of those articles you found can be used, simply because they are WAY out of date.

The subject of immigration's contribution to the housing crunch is complicated: in 1980, there were about 220M Americans; today there are about 320M. That almost 50% growth nationwide is 2/3 due to residents breeding, and 1/3 to immigration. I don't know the specifics for CA, but people "immigrate" to CA from other parts of the US and other countries because there are jobs here, unlike the rust belt where people emigrate away from, and where there's no shortage of housing. As the economy recovered after the 2008 recession, most of the jobs created were/are in cities, and this is driving the current urban migration; this together with insufficient housing construction in many cities (most because of regulation blocking housing creation, but in some places with huge demand and few regulatory barriers, they can't create homes fast enough--like the Permian basin where they have had rents as high as Manhattan, just because that many people were moving there that quickly for the jobs) is driving the shortage.

If you can find CURRENT articles talking about the contribution of immigration, than that could be included, but the real driver (of both legal and illegal immigration) is jobs. (retirees aren't driving this shortage). ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. It's important to get something like this right. Immigration goes up and it goes down (as does emigration). There is really a dearth of sources on current housing issues and immigration, which leads me to think it's not really an important cause right now (obviously it contributes to it, because California has immigrants, and they live in housing). But to say a bunch of people immigrated here in 1980, became naturalized and are causing the housing crisis is loony. Thanks for catching that; I honestly thought it was a foolproof edit at the time.Qwertyuiop1234567898 (talk) 00:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Suggestive language

I did my best to remove suggestive language in the article. It probably needs much more work. It was rife with it.Qwertyuiop1234567898 (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Expensive communities

This article still needs work in the area of expensive areas that don't have a strong local economy. Think Santa Barbara, Loomis, or Oceanside. It's harder to argue that the shortage is due to strong economic growth rather than expensive prices unaffordable to people, because so many wealthy people want to live there. How can we incorporate this?Qwertyuiop1234567898 (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The shortage in those areas is due (like everywhere else) to land-use regulations, also called zoning. Like in Marin, where it is essentially illegal to build a large multi-unit apartment building which would inexpensively house middle-class and low-income workers, the same is true for the above areas you mentioned. Read about how those cities have single-family zoning, minimum-plot size restrictions (poor people can't afford 20 acre lots), and footprint regulations (home square footage to land size) that are specifically designed to keep their area "exclusive" = keep the poor out. Using the power of law to keep whatever you own scarce (desirable beachfront property) makes your property more valuable if you can block large residential towers at the beach, like Miami has.---Avatar317^(talk) 02:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The Chicago study shows that upzoning can increase the value of land. In California, opposition to rezoning invalidates the "makes your property more valuable" argument. People are opposing rezoning at their own financial expense. And whoever said Miami oceanfront flats were cheap?

I think the distinction should be made between housing shortages due to a world-class local economy (like the bay area) versus world-class natural attractions driving up prices (like Santa Barbara). Only one of these scenarios seems to have real victims, to be honest. Both are present in California, but only one is represented in the article. Without a holistic view of the issue, the arc of legislation won't make sense to readers.

Keep in mind this article is rated a "C"Qwertyuiop1234567898 (talk) 03:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to US Housing Edit-a-thon

Please join us on 13 December 2020, 12:00-14:00 EST, as we update and improve articles in Wikipedia related to housing in the United States of America. Sign up here. -- M2545 (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Why the continued emphasis on supply and not demand?

It's true that CA housing supply has not kept up demand, leading to a shortage. The common way of looking at this is as a shortage of supply, and this article itself is primary focused on supply.

But that perspective is too narrow. Why does the excess demand not get more attention? For the past several decades focusing on supply has not resolved the issue so perhaps it's time to focus more on the demand side of the picture. A shortage takes two to tango, demand and supply must be mismatched. Analyzing and addressing it should tackle both as well, and not over emphasize only one side of the picture.

Why do so many people want to live in CA rather than Arkansas or Idaho? Yes the jobs is one part of it, but perhaps with work from home more normalized that challenge will become moot. What other changeable factors are driving people to CA? The on issue is CA has limited ability to change other states, but nevertheless without solving this national issue CA will be faced with addressing the symptom not the root cause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.241.192.137 (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

because posting on WP:COIN only shows your own conflicts

To editor FinancialCents: Per WP:POVFORK, you are not permitted to make a separate page. If you take issue with how this article reads, you'll need to either explain how the cited sources don't meet WP:RS or explain how the text present doesn't adequately represent the sources. If you simply disagree because you have half-baked ideas, then Wikipedia is not for you. Constructive editing requires you to adhere to our many rules regarding editing.(I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't have half-baked ideas. I have university degrees and factual bases including text books right off the shelf of major universities. Please select your language respectfully. Another person had told me to create a separate page and I did not agree with that approach. FinancialCents (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I am interested in the books describing the situation in different terms than the current political push by developers. Can you list them? Binksternet (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Here's a piece published through USC's Lusk Center for Real Estate. The article says that there is no practical solution for the "vicious" cycle of affordable housing. Binksternet (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Sadly, that source you posted is now almost 20 years old and the situation has gotten worse, rather than better. Part of the problem can be seen in the difference between building affordable (government financed) housing in Texas vs. CA: median costs/unit for new construction ~= $125,000 in TX yet $325,000 in CA (statewide). So Texas can house 2.5 times as many homeless/poor people per tax dollar spent.

Here's a recent article on affordable housing costs and difficulties in CA: Affordable housing can cost $1 million in California. Coronavirus could make it worse ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Lead too long tag

@Scope creep: Do you have any specific suggestions about how the lead can be improved, or why you think it is too long?

I'll try to trim/condense it a little without leaving any important details or summary out.---Avatar317^(talk) 04:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Avatar317: No, unfortunately not. It should be less that three paragraphs or less. For example, stuff like this "development (making it more costly or too expensive to be profitable); greater local tax revenues from hotels, commercial, and retail development vs. residential incentivize cities to permit less residential; and construction costs are greater because of high impact fees, and often developments are only approved if union labor is used". It is too wordy. It needs to be a summary. This is subjective: "The shortage is taking its toll on Californians in multiple ways". The several factors, you don't need to list here. scope_creep^Talk 10:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, I'll try to make the text you mentioned more concise without losing detail.

Actually, per WP:LEAD: "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs..." the lead is currently five paragraphs.

I'll reword the subjective "taking a toll on" to "affecting Californians" and try for more summarization...I already did some in three edits before you replied. ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Avatar317: It is still far too long. It needs only summarize and nothing else. scope_creep^Talk 23:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Avatar317: You don't need to list the constraints in the lede. That is for the body. scope_creep^Talk 23:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Did you read the article before adding this tag to the lead? The listed constraints in the lead are a summary of a section in which each constraint has a paragraph at least explaining it.---Avatar317^(talk) 23:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I will take a look at it again tommorrow. scope_creep^Talk 00:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Avatar317: I had another look at the lede and compared the sizes on other articles. Its too long. I would suggest removing the "several factors" sections as it is unsuitable for the lede anyway and combine what is there with background section. As far as I can see it is mostly covered already apart from the nimby bit. If your not up for doing it, or capable of doing it, I do it over the weekend. scope_creep^Talk 06:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The lead is not too long. I have removed the tag. The guideline at MOS:LEADLENGTH says that an article of this size (currently 32,393 characters long) should have a lead section of three or four paragraphs. Four reasonably sized paragraphs is what we have, so we're good. Binksternet (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

It is too long. The size of the content minus the references shows that it too long. I will do the work myself over the weekend. scope_creep^Talk 07:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The size I indicated is exactly what you are looking for: the content minus the references (and also minus the image captions.) I measured it with the character counting tool found at Wikipedia:Did you know/DYKcheck. If you think the lead section is too large, it's your personal opinion, not supported by guidelines. But constructive trimming is almost always a good idea. Binksternet (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the lead is not too long. As Binksternet noted, the "readable prose" size is 34,123 characters (while the article size is 173,797 bytes - the Page Statistics tab has this info). And as he noted, MOS:LEADLENGTH "The following suggestions about lead length may be useful ("article length" refers to readable prose size): More than 30,000 characters - Three or four paragraphs" - This is a SUGGESTION, not a requirement.

Per WP:MOSLEAD: "The average Wikipedia visit is a few minutes long. The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read. It gives the basics in a nutshell..." and "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points..."

I will admit, that I generally am quite wordy when I write, so my writing STYLE could potentially use editing for concision, but not to leave out any important details or facts. The article has a lot of substance in it, about a complicated issue, and it is hard to summarize it without leaving out important details. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis - Summer Session22

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 August 2022 and 4 September 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mavx1230 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Mavx1230 (talk) 04:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis - Summer Session23

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 August 2023 and 8 September 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ElBofo707, J3baq (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by ElBofo707 (talk) 06:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)